Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (276486)	2/24/2006 3:54:35 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 1572570

>>From what I know its cost. And the sheer volume...

To: Elroy who wrote (276486)	2/24/2006 7:40:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572570

It costs money and takes time to inspect such a huge volume of containers as well as bulk cargo and tankers (you could hide a nuke in a tanker). The net effect of trying to inspect everything would be a reduction in American trade, an increase in smuggling (not only the illegal stuff, but valuable time critical imports that would otherwise be legal), and a huge cost to hire all the inspectors and inspection facilities. And if someone has a nuke and they want to bring it in then they either explode in the harbor or they try to get it to Canada or Mexico and drive it across the border in a truck, or maybe they try to slip the border on a boat, small ship, or aircraft. Or maybe they start a conventional smuggling ring (drugs or something like that) and bribe an inspector to let the product in ,and then once the relationship is established they bring a nuke in with the drugs. Trying to inspect 100% of the cargo just isn't practical. Even the small percent that we do inspect probably doesn't get a very thorough inspection (at least not all of it does). Tim

To: Elroy who wrote (276486)	2/24/2006 7:56:09 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572570

Elroy, From what I know its cost. Then the UAE deal really makes no difference, except for the appearance it gives off. But I do think it's a boneheaded decision by the Bush administration. While we're at it, why don't we also put Mexico in charge of the border patrol? Tenchusatsu

To: Elroy who wrote (276486)	2/24/2006 8:49:25 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572570

In Hong Kong, they inspect EVERY container leaving the port. A truck hauling containers has to drive through two inspection stations, one, a sort of an gamma ray inspection of the cargo within, and the other is a radiation detector. post-gazette.com "..would cost shippers an additional $6.50 per container... "In fact, until Tuesday, Washington had shown little enthusiasm for the project, arguing that its efforts to beef up maritime surveillance and screening were sufficient. In part, the lack of enthusiasm by the U.S. for the system reflects a difference in philosophy. The U.S. believes security can be maintained by checking only select containers that may be suspect, based on their shipping manifest and government intelligence. Moving to a system that scanned all incoming containers would represent a costly change in approach." Hong Kong is the second largest port in the world, behind Singapore.